The admissibility and relevance of electronic records as documentary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, and the importance of allowing the comparison of voice samples for substantive evidence.

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. By way of present revision petition, challenge has been laid to an order dated 20.05.2023, passed by Rent Controller, Ludhiana, whereby an application filed at the instance of petitioner-tenant seeking permission to send his voice samples to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh for comparing the same with audio/video clip recorded in the pendrive (Ex.R-1/A), was dismissed.

2. In the present case, an eviction petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “1949 Act”) came to be filed by respondent-landlord on the ground of nonpayment of arrears of rent. In the written statement, petitioner-tenant took the stand that the rent was duly paid; on some occasions to the respondent-landlord and on few others to his son. In this regard, petitioner-tenant also relied upon one video-audio recording pertaining to the son of respondent.

3. Post framing of the issues, respondent-landlord appeared as PW-1 and the said video recording in a pendrive was even put to him after the same having been played in Court with due permission. The respondent-landlord denied the petitioner to be the person handing over certain amount to his son; besides even disputing the voice to be of the petitioner-tenant.

4. At the time of recording of evidence of petitioner-tenant, an application was filed at his instance, seeking permission to send his voice sample to the FSL for its comparison with the voice in the aforementioned video recording in the pendrive. The said application was opposed at the instance of respondent-landlord. The learned Rent Controller vide order dated 20.05.2023, rejected the prayer made by the petitioner-tenant in the said application.

5. Impugning the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the contents of the recording (audio as well as video) go to the roots of the matter and would help the Rent Controller to adjudicate upon the controversy in a complete and effective manner. He also submits that the Rent Controller went wrong while declining the prayer made in the application by holding that the Court cannot create evidence for petitioner-tenant. As per learned counsel, the evidence was already existing in the shape of pendrive and forming part of record as Ex. R-1/A, the question was only of its proof and thus, the observation made by the Courts below was wrong.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent supports the order passed by the Rent Controller, while submitting that the video recording in the pendrive cannot be treated to be a piece of primary evidence and thus, the same cannot be permitted to be produced or proved on record. He also points out that even details of device or date of the recording have not been mentioned in the application and thus, the prayer made was vague.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book, I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of petitioner.

8. The recording (audio-video) contained in the pendrive (Ex.R-1/A) is documentary evidence under Section 3-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘1872 Act’) being an electronic record and can even be treated as an admission under Section 7 thereof, however, subject to proof of its genuineness. Being an alleged document of admission relating to payment of rent to the son of the respondent-landlord it has got relevance to the controversy involved between the parties. The pendrive was even permitted to be played in Court in the presence of both the parties under the orders of the Rent Controller which was never challenged by the respondent-landlord and this fact assumes significance in terms of the relevance of the said recording. Moreover, having played the pendrive in the Court, the same was even put to respondent while he appeared as PW-1 and was made part of record as Ex.-R-1/A along with an affidavit/certificate submitted by the petitioner-tenant, under Section 65-B o